DOMA Under Attack in Senate: A Rising Disrespect for Marriage

The full Senate Judiciary Committee met today to consider a proposal to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

DOMA was passed by both houses of Congress by overwhelming margins—with majority support from both major political parties—and was signed into law by President Clinton, whose Department of Justice repeatedly argued that the legislation was fully constitutional.

However, the new proposal—known as the Respect for Marriage Act of 2011—would not restore the law to its condition pre-DOMA; rather, it would affirmatively require the federal government to recognize the validity of, and accord marriage benefits to, any current or future relationship recognized by a state, including polygamous and polyamorous unions.

In the 15 years since the enactment of DOMA, the people of 31 states have voted on measures that strengthen existing legal presumptions that marriage represents the union of one man and one woman. Few if any issues in public life have received comparable attention in the form of initiatives, referenda, or other broad indicia of popular opinion. The result to date has amply reaffirmed the core meaning of marriage as a natural and pre-political institution that is no “mere creature of the state” but a relationship grounded in the physical reality of the two sexes and oriented, by societal reinforcement, toward the begetting, bearing, and raising of future generations.

In the privacy of the ballot box, voters continue to show more respect for the time-honored meaning of marriage than they do in other settings, where personal intimidation and taunts of bigotry predominate. Americans sense that marriage is an institution uniquely situated to combine and maximize the private goods of fidelity and a shared life with the public and intergenerational goods of family and community life.

President Obama also indicated yesterday that he supports repeal of DOMA and its replacement with the Respect for Marriage Act. With this additional step, the Obama Administration’s “evolution” on the question of redefining marriage is approaching Drosophila-like proportions—there is something new every two weeks. Coming on the heels of its lax legal advocacy for DOMA in federal district court and its recent court filing attacking the law in the Golinksi case, the President’s stated support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman has the air of Brutus at the funeral of Julius Caesar: His love for the institution will not prevent him from presiding over its demise.

The hearing today has one virtue. It shows that the issues at hand can be debated and voted upon, that elected representatives can stand for propositions in which they believe and be accountable to the electorate for the decisions they make. This is especially important on proposals to rework a fundamental institution of civil society that functions for the twin causes of human happiness and limited government. Judicial bodies that feel tempted to intervene in such debates and overturn marriage should observe this process and operate with maximum self-restraint.

Charles A. "Chuck" Donovan is the president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute. He served as legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee more than three decades ago, worked as a writer for President Reagan, helped to lead the Family Research Council for nearly two decades and most recently has been senior research fellow in Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

Join The Discussion

The entire purpose of ending the ban on homosexual conduct in the military was to provide a broad basis for litigious action against federal and state governments concerning same-sex marriage. Although this maneuver was patently obvious most Republicans and so-called conservatives sat back and did nothing while the men and women of the armed forces were sold down river for political purposes. Since the destruction of the institution of marriage is one of the ultimate goals of liberalism, and since socialist and communist forces seek to have all relationships vetted through, and controlled by, the state, it is particularly disconcerting to see how little defense of marriage as an institution is being mounted throughout our society. One thing is absolutely certain, the socio-ethnic group which has the strongest adherence to cear and defensible marital standards and practices will be the one that inherits the U.S. from the current European-descended majority. If traditional marriage is successfully undermined by socialists/communists and their "useful idiots," the liberals, then our society as we know it will die out. If that eventuality should be realized, then I can only say good riddance.

Defend marriage from what? Being open to thousands upon thousands of new, loving couples? You want to "defend" marriage, try advocating for stricter laws on what heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry or making it harder to obtain a divorce.

Please write a post on the Founders on the diabolical acts of homosexuality:

Because of the nature of homosexuality, the penalties for the act of sodomy were often severe. For example, Thomas Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, "dismemberment" of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. In fact, Jefferson himself authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration. The laws of the other states showed similar or even more severe penalties:

That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead. 9 NEW YORK

That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death. 10 CONNECTICUT

Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime. 11 GEORGIA

I love Heritage and almost everything that you stand for… but respectfully disagree on this matter. Conservatism is about freedom and I believe we should protect that when it comes to the right to choose a partner or partners in life… whether you call is "marriage" or not is immaterial, but we should respect the freedom to choose and the right to pursue happiness and we should not deny them benefits that we give to other couples.

Marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is sacred. When it is destroyed it will lead to the destruction of Western Civilization. It will end patriotism. Everything that makes America great is being destroyed by this president and his partners in immorality. The most devisive president in our history.

Get over yourselves. Marriage as an institution was created to control women and protect men's property. There is no such thing as the 'sanctity' of marriage. In this age of equality, marriage should be about protections for two individuals who are committed to each other. No heterosexual marriages have been destroyed where homosexual marriage is legal. I don't get how you religious types can spout the word of a God to deny equality. The God, and Jesus, I was taught about growing up as a Roman Catholic was loving and considered everyone equal. The 'love the sinner, hate the sin' adage is an excuse to control society so it fits into a governments ideology. What kind of God do you follow? How will same sex marriage destroy society? It will strengthen bonds between families who can be together and financially secure. What kind of God wants to see the children of lesbian and gay men go without? What kind of God wants children left unadopted because lesbian and gay men are not able to adopt. And before you drop your jaw to respond, every single study, including the one used by Focus on the Family, says that 2 parents (not just 1 male and 1 female) do better generally and in fact the children of lesbians do better than kids in any other environment!

Gays and lesbians are neither an ethnicity nor a gender. How is it possible to grant them "equality" to those classes?

C'mon progressives. You guys believe the science is settled for Global Warming.
Where's the science that proves gays and lesbians are equal to an ethnicity or gender?

Truth is they can only provide declarations, deceptions, deflections and evasions.
They'll never be able to adequately explain prison se x or bisexuaIism as anything other than a choice.
In a recent argument, a gay marriage advocate would not admit that repentant gays existed and required their proof. PROOF.

They can't argue for equality and ignore other sexuaI-based groups of pedos, incest, bestials and polys. "Equality" for EVERYONE.
Legally, without scientific proof, anyone can claim they're gay and being discriminated against.

Gay is not equal to ethnicity or gender.

And even under the silly argument that it is genetic, then that means pedos are born that way too and should be granted the same rights that gays enjoy.

The lie is the belief that gays are victims of marriage discrimination. They've hijacked the civil rights movement so they can make subtle changes to our system and give their advocacy groups the empowerment of labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a "bigot". By co-opting civil rights, they've conned people into believing it is a righteous cause.
They've duped many of our politicians, but they won't fool America. We all know it's never been about gay marriage, just like it's never been about gay adoption. It has been and always will be about getting the state to legitimize the gay lifestyle and create a third gender.

If we are to turn the tide of this latest progressive agenda, it will have to be fought in the courts and end the gay activists forcing their BS on everyone.

I also have to make an addition to address the Fourteenth Amendment these progressives keep beating us over the head with.

Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Make sure they don't abridge the section by omitting the first line. Without it, the amendment sounds like it could apply to anything other than slaves. Don't let them lie to you. The Fourteenth amendment is on our side as is the Tenth.

The section 1 actualy is not on your side it is on the side of repealing DOMA. Because DOMA does abridge privileges and does deny equal protections and most people in te cases are born in the U.S. so I am not seeing what you mean.

Regardless of your personal political leanings, there simply is not enough empirical or historical evidence to justify changing the basic unit of society. There's more historic evidence that polygamous families are stable forces in society than there is for same-sex couples. The study explains the distinction made within the study, using the term ""traditional' nuclear families," and noting that "spouse" was defined as husband or wife. There were evidently not enough same sex married parents to cause a bump in their years-long process.
Regardless of your personal political leanings, there simply is not enough empirical or historical evidence to justify changing the basic unit of society. There's more historic evidence that polygamous families are stable forces in society than there is for same-sex couples.

If nihilists didn't have such unusual political influence in this country, if the left hadn't had such free reign in their sick "destroy the family [in minority communities]" welfare experiment, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But, they do and they did.

So much of our modern culture wars comes from a simple lack of credibility. The single most winning strategy for same-sex marriage today is probably "I support it, but only if it happens through popular referendums." Lots of supporters support that precisely because it would limit the influence of both nihilists and the anti-family left.

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times? Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

Email address

Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do. Try the Morning Bell and get the day’s most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time…and your intelligence.